Copyright protection paradigm in the generative AI era: originality, attribution, and infringement
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

Copyright protection paradigm in the generative AI era: originality, attribution, and infringement

Qinru Li 1*
1 China University of Political Science and Law
*Corresponding author: 240820438@cupl.edu.cn
Published on 29 September 2025
Journal Cover
ASBR Vol.16 Issue 8
ISSN (Print): 2753-7110
ISSN (Online): 2753-7102
Download Cover

Abstract

This paper examines the copyright challenges raised by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). It begins by analyzing the generative process, arguing that the originality of text prompts can serve as a basis for the copyrightability of AI-generated outputs. Accordingly, the study then explores the complex issue of attribution based on the proposed generative process, evaluating the competing claims of users, developers, and data providers, and proposes an ownership model that reflects the degree of creative contribution. Finally, the paper addresses infringement concerns, comparing regulatory approaches in the US, EU and China, and advocates a balanced protection framework that reconciles innovation with copyright safeguards.

Keywords:

AI-generated content copyright originality infringement

View PDF
Li,Q. (2025). Copyright protection paradigm in the generative AI era: originality, attribution, and infringement. Advances in Social Behavior Research,16(8),46-54.

References

[1]. Oppenlaender, J. (2022). The Creativity of Text-to-Image Generation. In  The25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference(pp. 256-264). ACM. https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3569219.3569352

[2]. Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., & Han, Q.-L. (2023). A Brief Overview of ChatGPT: The History, Status Quo and Potential Future Development.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1-15.

[3]. Ginsburg, J. C. (1992). No Sweat Copyright and Other Protection of Works of Information after Feist v. Rural Telephone.Columbia Law Review, 92(2), 338-388.

[4]. Rosati, E. (2018). Why Originality in Copyright Is Not and Should Not Be a Meaningless Requirement.Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(9), 724-735. https: //doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy084

[5]. Rahmatian, A. (2013). Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old "Skill and Labour" Doctrine Under Pressure.IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44(1), 4-34.

[6]. Mazzi, F. (2024). Authorship in artificial intelligence-generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection.Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3), 410-427.

[7]. Samuels, E. (1988). The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law.Tennessee Law Review, 56(2), 321-364.

[8]. Deltorn, J.-M., & Macrez, F. (2018). Authorship in the Age of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. Center for International Property Studies.

[9]. Nordemann, J. B. (2019, November 21). AIPPI: No Copyright Protection for AI Works without Human Input, but Related Rights Remain.  Kluwer Copyright Blog. http: //copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/21/aippi-no-copyright-protection-for-ai-works-without-human-input-but-related-rights-remain/

[10]. Liu, V., & Chilton, L. B. (2022). Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-23).

[11]. Chang, M., Druga, S., Fiannaca, A. J., Vergani, P., Kulkarni, C., Cai, C. J., & Terry, M. (2023). The prompt artists. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 75–87). Association for Computing Machinery. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3591196.3593515

[12]. Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighboring Rights Approach.IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51(5), 553-581.

[13]. Guadamuz, A. (2021). Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright? In Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. Oxford University Press.

[14]. European Commission. (2020, June 7).  Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence - Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework. https: //digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/trends-and-developments-artificial-intelligence-challenges-intellectual-property-rights-framework

[15]. Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2019). International Copyright Law: Principles, Law, and Practice (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

[16]. Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighboring Rights Approach.IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51(5), 553-581.

[17]. Giuffrida, I. (2019). Liability for AI Decision-Making: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations.European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(1), 41-48.

[18]. Lynch, H. F., Vayena, E., & Gasser, U. (Eds.). (2018). Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.

[19]. Heverly, R. (2020). More Is Different: Liability of Compromised Systems in Denial of Service Attacks.Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 33(2), 567-610.

[20]. Dusollier, S., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Mezei, P., Quintais, J. P., & Rognstad, O.-A. (2025). Copyright and Generative AI: Opinion.JIPITEC, 16(1), 121-127.

References

[1]. Oppenlaender, J. (2022). The Creativity of Text-to-Image Generation. In  The25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference(pp. 256-264). ACM. https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3569219.3569352

[2]. Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., & Han, Q.-L. (2023). A Brief Overview of ChatGPT: The History, Status Quo and Potential Future Development.IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1-15.

[3]. Ginsburg, J. C. (1992). No Sweat Copyright and Other Protection of Works of Information after Feist v. Rural Telephone.Columbia Law Review, 92(2), 338-388.

[4]. Rosati, E. (2018). Why Originality in Copyright Is Not and Should Not Be a Meaningless Requirement.Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(9), 724-735. https: //doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy084

[5]. Rahmatian, A. (2013). Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old "Skill and Labour" Doctrine Under Pressure.IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44(1), 4-34.

[6]. Mazzi, F. (2024). Authorship in artificial intelligence-generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection.Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3), 410-427.

[7]. Samuels, E. (1988). The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law.Tennessee Law Review, 56(2), 321-364.

[8]. Deltorn, J.-M., & Macrez, F. (2018). Authorship in the Age of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. Center for International Property Studies.

[9]. Nordemann, J. B. (2019, November 21). AIPPI: No Copyright Protection for AI Works without Human Input, but Related Rights Remain.  Kluwer Copyright Blog. http: //copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/21/aippi-no-copyright-protection-for-ai-works-without-human-input-but-related-rights-remain/

[10]. Liu, V., & Chilton, L. B. (2022). Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-23).

[11]. Chang, M., Druga, S., Fiannaca, A. J., Vergani, P., Kulkarni, C., Cai, C. J., & Terry, M. (2023). The prompt artists. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 75–87). Association for Computing Machinery. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3591196.3593515

[12]. Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighboring Rights Approach.IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51(5), 553-581.

[13]. Guadamuz, A. (2021). Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright? In Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. Oxford University Press.

[14]. European Commission. (2020, June 7).  Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence - Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework. https: //digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/trends-and-developments-artificial-intelligence-challenges-intellectual-property-rights-framework

[15]. Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2019). International Copyright Law: Principles, Law, and Practice (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

[16]. Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighboring Rights Approach.IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51(5), 553-581.

[17]. Giuffrida, I. (2019). Liability for AI Decision-Making: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations.European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(1), 41-48.

[18]. Lynch, H. F., Vayena, E., & Gasser, U. (Eds.). (2018). Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.

[19]. Heverly, R. (2020). More Is Different: Liability of Compromised Systems in Denial of Service Attacks.Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 33(2), 567-610.

[20]. Dusollier, S., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Mezei, P., Quintais, J. P., & Rognstad, O.-A. (2025). Copyright and Generative AI: Opinion.JIPITEC, 16(1), 121-127.

Cite this article

Li,Q. (2025). Copyright protection paradigm in the generative AI era: originality, attribution, and infringement. Advances in Social Behavior Research,16(8),46-54.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Journal: Advances in Social Behavior Research

Volume number: Vol.16
Issue number: Issue 8
ISSN: 2753-7102(Print) / 2753-7110(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.